memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Intrepid (NCC-74600)
moved from talk:USS Intrepid. Excelsior v. Intrepid class Was it really the Excelsior Intrepid that held those efficiency contests with the Enterprise? Or could it have possibly been the Intrepid prototype? -- Harry 04:36, 24 Dec 2003 (PST) :Well, did the writers of that episode know that Voyager was going to be an Intrepid-class vessel? If not, it obviously wasn't intended to be the Intrepid prototype. Stating it was, would be kinda like saying that V'Ger met the Borg. --James Cody 20:51, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Wait, how could the Intrepid from Force of Nature be the Intrepid-class prototype? The Intrepid-class were designed with variable geometry pylons to rectify the problem that was only discovered in that episode!!! 01:27, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::: perhaps it was first built without these pylons and made some flight tests with conventional pylons. Then, when the problem was discovered, it was decided to modify the design with new pylons, and the prototype was refurbished. Quite a large modification, but that's what prototypes are meant for! --Rami 14:08, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::The variable geometry pylon article states this in the background, interestingly enough: :::::The first time the concept of variable-geometry warp nacelle pylons is mentioned anywhere is in the ''Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual in the section dealing with preliminary concepts for future starships. The goal of the these pylons is to improve engine efficiency by optimizing field stress when the ship travels extended journeys at warp 8+ velocity.'' ::::The Technical Manual was published two years before "Force of Nature". Thus, while they probably did not intend the Intrepid to be this class ship, all these random facts over the years ended up fitting pretty well together (not regarding the improved efficiencies, which I know are different, but rather the fact that Voyager was launched a year later, a prototype pylon design that seems to have its origins years before it also ends up solving a warp problem discovered later on, etc.). Wangry 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Excelsior v. Intrepid, II Shouldn't we assume the second and third ships in this list are the same ship? There is no reason to assume they are different. There is no reference to it being destroyed and the class existed at the time. Unless we count all the non-canon info under the second one. - :The had just been commissioned, in which it had the registry of NX-2000. It is highly unlikely that there would be an NCC-3**** ship at that time ;) - Enzo Aquarius 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ::Isn't it over a year later? And either way I don't think it is enough to assume a new ship, we have no idea if they can change registry or not. I think a background note on any oddities would suffice. - :::Sometimes, there just isn't a good answer, and we have to deal with that. --Icesyckel 02:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Removed note Removed the following, as the article already assumes that the real Intrepid was doing that. Unless we want to discuss whether or not it was the same ship, it probably doesn't need to be there. Due to the accuracy of the Species 8472 simulation, it is likely that this information was correct and the USS Intrepid was in fact patrolling the Romulan neutral zone during the time Voyager was in the Delta Quadrant.--31dot 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) :This vessel may have been named for the 23rd century Federation starship , which was destroyed in 2268; she might also have been named for the , a starship in operation in the 2340s. :Speculation, all Intrepid''s could be named after the ''Intrepid. - 18:07, August 24, 2011 (UTC) Should This Note Really Be Here? :In 2375, the ''Intrepid was on a three-year assignment patrolling the Romulan Neutral Zone. Commander Chakotay of the posed as Commander Jason Hayek of the Intrepid on stardate 52136 when he infiltrated a simulation of Starfleet Headquarters created by Species 8472.'' I really don't think this note should be in here, as it was only in an 8472 simulation, and even it was accurate, it could very have easily been another USS Intrepid (the Excelsior-class one for instance). --Nero210 00:30, November 7, 2009 (UTC) :The note can exist but must be shown that Chakotay fabricated it rather than stating it as fact. — Morder (talk) 00:33, November 7, 2009 (UTC) pna-inaccurate Neither the fact that this ship is an Intrepid-class vessel, nor the fact that this is the same ship already active in 2370, is cited. Unless a proper citation can be added (which I think doesn't exist), both bits of information need to be removed as speculation. -- Cid Highwind 21:05, June 23, 2010 (UTC) :Agreed- the name does not necessarily suggest that it was an Intrepid-class vessel. The rationale given(that it was as efficient as a Galaxy class vessel) is shaky at best. I can't recall if there is any production info on this.--31dot 22:02, June 23, 2010 (UTC) ::I would also like to see these production writings. - 00:18, June 24, 2010 (UTC) The ''Intrepid mentioned in "Force of Nature" is most likely the NCC-74600, considering that it was challenging the warp core efficiency rating of a top-of-the-line Galaxy-class starship one year before the launch of another Intrepid-class vessel, the . The ship's registry was not mentioned onscreen, but is from the production writings of Rick Sternbach, designer of the Intrepid-class. The name and registry eventually showed up on-screen in Star Trek: Nemesis, where Sternbach created the visuals for the production.'' ::I've removed the pna and put the uncited info here. Since we don't have any reason to think that the "Force of Nature" Intrepid is a different Intrepid, I left that information in the article. - 15:47, March 18, 2011 (UTC) Nebula class Intrepid (memo) The background information has a link to a memo for the abandoned season 6 finale of TNG. The memo mentions a Nebula-class USS Indiana, but not Intrepid, as Rikers new command.